Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: It is argued that a header area is important watersheds.
Evidence B:The territory / landscape / seascape proposed is a globally important area for biodiversity and climate benefits further. For example, improvement in the conditions of land tenure will enable the protection, restoration of native forests and implementation of appropriate technology to substantially strengthen indigenous governance to counter and mitigate climate change.
Evidence C:Territory located in the Tucuman Province, Argentina. Territory with various sources of watersheds. Rivers connected to the Gran Chaco region.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The proposed area is important for mitigating climate. For example, the region is characterized by rising watershed important water in the Gran Chaco, water fountains that make up the rivers and lakes that supply a large sector of the population in low-lying areas such as the System Water Sali-Dulce - Cuenca Wall- Trancas ending in the lagoon Marchiquita, prov. Cordoba in the center of the country. Area of maximum conservation interest as is the headwaters of watersheds, an integral part of the Serrana region of Gran Chaco, of vital importance for humanity, because it is the most important forest ecoregion of the continent, for its size and biodiversity then of the Amazon and the largest dry forests.
Evidence C:No clear, relevant information was provided to determine its importance.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: The Diaguitas communities face serious problems of land titling
Evidence B:The area owned and managed by indigenous people under systems of community-based governance marginally since there is a legal framework and political strong in relation to indigenous peoples.
Evidence C:No clear information about land ownership and management was provided. Governance structures not clearly explained.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The document submitted by the interested vaguely explains the cultural significance of the site. However, the region is inhabited since pre-Columbian times, caring for and preserving natural and cultural assets, keeping alive and rooted their worldview as guardians of nature
Evidence C:No clear information on the spiritual and cultural attachment to the land was provided. No specific sacred site was mentioned either.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The lack of indigenous land titling in the best interests of outside investors.
Evidence B:The initiative presents in its document that the area is vulnerable to current threats and risks for indigenous peoples and biodiversity if necessary actions are not taken. The main threat is external, landowners agents constantly harass the indigenous population in the absence of regulation of community titles communities Choromoro Valley; where have the technical, legal and cadastral survey by Law 26160, but in Argentina there are no mechanisms to guarantee the right to indigenous territory and problems due to lack of qualifications are spread throughout the country.
Evidence C:Main threats seem to be landholders and logging.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The document submitted by the interested parties, indicating a legal and political framework that recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples over their lands and resources constraints.
Evidence C:General legal and policy frameworks enable conservation by the indigenous communities. However, it is clear the extent to which the communities hold collectively the land. Further information is needed.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The proposed area indicates that there is an active government support for conservation led by indigenous peoples in the country / area proposed.
Evidence C:National programs support conservation by the indigenous communities. However, no clear information was provided about relevant programs by the Tucuman Province.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The document reflects that have been implemented projects jointly with institutions and the proposed area indicates that there is an active government support for conservation led by indigenous peoples in the country / area proposed. government. And there are successful conservation initiatives led by indigenous peoples in the proposed area that provide a base for expanding.
Evidence C:No information was provided about conservation initiatives being carried out by the project proponent. The communities’ initiatives seem to be only focused in protecting that lands that are under their possession. One particular community was able to stop logging but not enough information was provided about it.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The document indicates that there similar projects that will complement the initiative. However, the information is not detailed properly.
Evidence C:Information about 13 projects was provided. Two of them are relevant for this particular project.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: This EoI relates more to the demand for recognition of indigenous rights over the territory with a conservation initiative of inclusive biodiversity
Evidence B:The project will support the long-term objectives of the Communities to the defense of the territory, cultural appreciation, conservation of native forests, production and sustainable employment generation power have an interdisciplinary team from addressing legal issues relevant to the ancestral possession of the territory as cultural appreciation, environmental preservation, food sovereignty and community participation to strengthen governance of the people in the Valley Choromoro,
Evidence C:Proposed approach heavily focused on protecting the lands under the communities’ possession. Gaining legal security over such lans is the main goal. A few elements of the project focus on conservation and governance.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The proposal needs a thorough review for clarity of objectives, actions and results regarding the conservation objective
Evidence B:Activities and results of the document are clearly defined with their links and relations towards improving the quality of life of populations through the development of productive enterprises, associated with localities that particularize each in relation to the natural and cultural environment and integrate them into its geography as a territory of protection, autonomy articulate indigenous identity that will allow them to trade and act together with other communities. However, no detailed and accurate information needs clarification in some respects.
Evidence C:The information included into the EoI is neither clear nor comprehensive. Various aspects of the project require further information and clarification.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: You can not see the relationship between the proposed goals and the disappearance of pressures and threats
Evidence B:The execution of the project will provide important services eco systemic and result in not only comprehensive benefits for communities articulated but for all inhabitants of this basin allowing the territory to strengthen its defense and environmental conservation. However, it has limitations of the legal and policy framework in the proposed area.
Evidence C:Proposed project could help overcome what has been included as threats. Gaining legal security over their lands will certainly enable opportunities for conservation.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Activities and results are well aligned with cessation of harassment, eviction cessation trials, resolution of the merits of the conflict over territory, efficient management of natural resources and trained community members.
Evidence C:The project activities and results are aligned with the EoI range of investment. The proposed activities are doable within the project period.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: This is some government programs for the rural sector
Evidence B:The paper highlights some important sources of co-financing. However, no details of the time period and the amount to be invested in this project.
Evidence C:Information about 13 sources of co-financing has been included. But it is not clear whether they are significant for this particular project.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: Provided information
Evidence B:The information given by the initiative reflects a moderate estimate to the main indicators of the GEF.
Evidence C:Based on the provided information, the benefits are not substantial.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: Indicators for improving living conditions are reasonable. However, no specific indicators just appreciate the Diaguita culture.
Evidence B:Additional contributions to the goal of the project is moderate to improving the quality of life of the indigenous population in general since this is a comprehensive project that the strengthening indigenous governance in the territory they inhabit from generation to generation enables better management means. It does not give specific benefits to the surtax.
Evidence C:These results do derive from the stated project goals. Particular attention was given to livelihoods results.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The vision provided almost strictly linked to the issue of obtaining rights on land titling.
Evidence B:The main activities of the project are designed to be installed capacities for sustainable production, management and training of human resources to ensure, when these targets are achieved, continuity, permanence and amplification of the positive impacts of the initiative.
Evidence C:Because the main goal is gain legal security over the lands in possession, once it is achieved, biodiversity and governance will certainly benefit over time.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The proposed activities are related to the Strategy and National Action Plan on Biodiversity and National Certain contributions regarding the care, protection, restoration and conservation of biodiversity. No clutch does not detail the top priorities.
Evidence C:No clear information was provided. Project proponent either not aware of NBSAPs and/or NDCs or not being capable to relate the EoI to them.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: Aims to provide spaces for women vague, unspecific.
Evidence B:The participation of women is vital in their indigenous worldview, in ceremonies in the round alternates between women and men as this is the symbol of the together represent duality and integration, however, only specifies some aspects of the participation of women.
Evidence C:Gender mainstreaming approached not clearly stated. No project activity or goal target gender mainstreaming.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: No history enough.
Evidence B:The document presented by interested parties shows a medium-high potential for innovation and transformation to a long-term contribution.
Evidence C:Potential is moderate.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: Important spaces described the project management by allied NGOs, such as budget management and execution of the project.
Evidence B:The initiative reflects the focus-Led in the development of the document by indigenous peoples.
Evidence C:It is led by an indigenous organization. However, it is not clear whether the project proponent is an actual organization or an ad-hoc network working with four indigenous communities.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The leading proponent of the document shows a significant leadership in the field of proposed work.
Evidence C:It is led by an indigenous organization. However, it is not clear whether the project proponent is an actual organization or an ad-hoc network working with four indigenous communities.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The main proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other organizations of indigenous peoples, plays an important role in the design, governance and implementation, to carry out the work.
Evidence C:Project proponent with relevant indigenous partnerships. There seems to be a strong connection among the project proponent and the four indigenous communities mentioned in the EoI.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The organization does not provide sufficient evidence on the ability to manage a project of the scale of ICI
Evidence B:According to the document, the organization has some technical-administrative and logistical capacity that will sustain and carry out management activities and training of the project; in turn members of communities have the empirical knowledge and the necessary suitability to produce the changes proposed in the project.
Evidence C:The EoI includes NGOs and government agencies as project partners. These partners would provide the necessary technical capacity to deliver the proposed results.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: No evidence was seen in respect
Evidence B:The paper shows some financial management capacity and projects necessary for the scale of the proposed effort, however, the organization will need support to two criteria.
Evidence C:The information about the project proponent’s capacity is not clear. The information provided about project proponent and the four indigenous communities in questions is confusing.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Although projects have gained support from international organizations, these have been small-scale and not the least one even executed.
Evidence B:The Express initiative that has experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF but has no experience
Evidence C:NA